Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the provided annotations by explicitly stating that it is 'read-only', does not change page or account state, does not access BetterOff customer data, and does not provide personalized financial advice. This clearly discloses side effects and access limitations, matching the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long and highly focused. It states the purpose, then the key constraints, without extraneous information. Structure is logical and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a relatively simple calculator, the description provides enough context: it names the inputs (assets, debts), the calculation (net worth, liquid net worth, debt percentage), and the output nature ('Returns a result'). It does not specify the exact output schema, but that is likely covered by an output schema (as indicated by the context). The description is complete enough for an agent to decide whether to use it, though a few edge cases or formatting details are omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions 'asset and debt entries' but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Debt categories', 'Asset categories', 'Snapshot date'). The parameter meanings are adequately captured, but no extra insight is offered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's primary function: 'Calculates net worth from asset and debt entries, plus liquid net worth and debt percentage of assets.' It also clarifies its read-only and educational nature, which distinguishes it from other calculators in the sibling set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description make its purpose clear, there is no direct guidance such as 'Use this when you need a net worth calculation' or comparison to other calculators. The 'educational' and 'read-only' qualifiers hint at appropriate scenarios but are not explicit usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.